Lord_Majestic - 3:41 pm on Feb 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

So why hold one logo certification to a higher standard than another?

I think the allegation here is that one logo was created to imply that a computer with it can run main advertised features of Vista, most visual of which is Aero - the fact that somewhere in small print it says that "Windows Vista Capable" does not actually mean that you can have Aero is irrelevant - if lots of people bought something on the basis of one logo and got disappointed, then they were mislead - maybe they were just too stupid to understand the difference, or read the small print, but this still reflects very poorly on Microsoft even if legally they are right, which I think is not the case here: I don't use Vista and speficially Aero is not something I would like to have at all, however when new OS includes such a new GUI then to talk about it being "premium" feature is ridiculous.

Frankly, I don't think it is Vista if it has not got Aero, I used beta of Windows Server 2008 using old Windows 2000 theme and it looked just the same, the whole point of Vista being consumer OS is having distinctive features like Aero, and if Vista "capable" computer can't run it then it is not really capable in my view.

Anyway, I am going back to work now - we shall see how this case develops, my money is on Microsoft settling it, of course without admitting to any fault :)